Dev wallet tracking

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safe read-only nature is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: the interpretive meaning of the results and the cost ('one API unit on any chain'). No contradiction with annotations exists.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core function, followed by interpretation, exclusions, and cost. Every sentence contributes essential guidance; the only minor redundancy is repeating 'address and chain' when the schema already lists them, but the API unit detail justifies that sentence.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For selecting and invoking the tool correctly, the description plus schema cover everything needed: purpose, interpretation, exclusions, parameter formats, defaults, and cost. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. There are no significant gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already thoroughly documents address and chain, including formats and chain requirements. The description adds only the note about one API unit, which is cost-related rather than parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb and resource: analyzing what the token's creator did with their supply, covering retained share, sales vs transfers, and transfer destinations. It explicitly differentiates itself from siblings like get_whales and get_wallet_links by stating it is not for non-creator wallets or the creator's earlier tokens.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: it is for the creator's behavior on the current token, not for other wallets or earlier tokens, with named alternatives. It also explains how to interpret the output (neutral holding, warning on full exit, strongest rug signal for fresh-wallet transfers), helping an agent decide when this tool is the right choice.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.